Discussion ! ISAF or TEXEL poll came in as 2:2:2

Discussion ! ISAF or TEXEL or other poll came in as 2:2:2
<br>
<br>Obviously there is a need to discuss the pros and Cons of the systems and determine which of the two will be the defaukt F16HP system in order to calculate the handicap.
<br>
<br>To start the discussion a bit :
<br>
<br>Texel :
<br>
<br>- Simple clear and understandable to all, it is well documented . Only has three variables in main formula "Rated weight, Rated sailarea and Rated length" These three variables are calculated using more variables such as luff lengths and mast side length.
<br>
<br>- The three main variables are also the once that are fixed in the F16HP rule : Rated weight is fixed at 250 kg's (100 kg's boat and 150 kg's crewweight), mainsail area max 13 sq. mtr. and max length = 5 mtr. (Rated jib area is also used by we use this as the equalizer)
<br>
<br>- NO influence on number from different style of boards or having carbon mast.
<br>
<br>- Genaker rating is " on and off" style not proportional.
<br>
<br>- Texel rating is know to be of the mark when it comes down to rating non genaker board to genaker boats. And catrigged boats to non catrigged boats
<br>
<br>
<br>ISAF :
<br>
<br>-Rates more things such as Carbon mast and and rates boards proportional as well as the genaker area.
<br>
<br>- ISAF probably is more internationally recognized than Texel.
<br>
<br>- ISAF is more complex than Texel and is using much more formula's
<br>
<br>- ISAF is reported to be based around the Texel main formula but I have troubkle finding similarities in the formula. However both system rate non genaker , non carbon, boardless boats exactly the same, so the claim could be true.
<br>
<br>- ISAF, I'm suspicious about the rating of the boards. Example Standard Taipan 4.9 with genaker is just as fast or faster than F18 under texel but about under ISAF the same boat with teh max genaker size of 21 sq.mtr. has a rating difference of Taipan 4.9 - F18 = 1,0176 - 1,0060 = 0,0116 = 1,16 %. And this is purely caused by the Taipan 4.9 boards. The heavier Stealth with less sailarea and smaller luffs is rated just as fast purely on the makeup on the boards. My own calculations are more in compliance with Texel. Using ISAF could well give tje Taipan alot more jib area to compensate for its board makeup. A more striking example is the Cirrus Ecole, I now that one points at least as high as the F18's Tiger and Inter 18 but it gets rewarded by an extra handicap point for using the tornado centreboards which don't go very deep.
<br>
<br>- ISAF may well have the same catrigged versus sloop rigged inequality as Texel has.
<br>
<br>Other system :
<br>
<br>- Which other system ? D-PN won't work for that is an experience driving system.
<br>
<br>- We can use our own calculations but those have no meaning in the rest of the world
<br>
<br>- We just could change the jib rule to :
<br>
<br>Max rated jib are < 4,01 sq.mtr. and place the F16HP somewhere past the F18 (and F20 in heavier airs) and below the iF20 in lighter airs. Under Texel we would be raed faster than F18's and under ISAF we would be rated sometimes slower and sometimes faster.
<br>
<br>
<br>So please reply and give us your opinion at the end of the discussion we'll choose the default system for the jib rule
<br>
<br>Wouter<br><br>

Texel also means less measurement and less checks before race.
<br>
<br>Wouter<br><br>

Well, as member of the Texel Rating committee I might be a bit biased, but sure, I’d rather see Texel Rating.
<br>
<br>Some points:
<br>
<br>The Texel rating is in fact a further development of the older IOMR rating, where the idea was to keep the formula’s as simple as possible. This is done by Nico Boon, and it is simplify’d a lot, the formula is way easier (also easier to understand), and gives almost the same results as the original rating system.
<br>The Isaf rating is still based on the older IOMR rule, which is rather complex, and more prone to “loopholes”
<br>For a more detailed description, have a look at www.texelraing.knwv.nl , the link “Why Texel Rating”
<br>
<br>Sure there are small some differences, between ISAF and Texel, for the spinnakers I can say the differences are rather small:
<br>
<br>The penalty for a spi (3 points) is because the spi area was calculated as 7% effective sail area.
<br>To keep thing simple we decided for this 3 points rule, and different spi area limits according the size of the boat.
<br>(Otherwise all boats with a spi must have an individual rating)
<br>
<br>Isaf does almost the same thing, the rate the Spi area as being 10% effective sailarea, but:
<br>First the sail area of the jib will be deducted from the spi area, and this smaller area will be used.
<br>This is in fact a rule from “the old day’s” when the jib was just a hinder behind the symmetrical spi, on heavy monohulls.
<br>In general, the penalty for spi’s will not differ much between Isaf and Texel, but Isaf does make individual ratings, depending on the spi size. In my idea it a problem for the race committee’s, and splitting the classes even more.
<br>
<br>
<br>About being recognised, don’t be too sure, there are a lot of country’s where Texel Rating is used, also because it can be used for the bigger catamaran’s/tri’s.
<br>
<br>And indeed, our system is open, all the rules are on the Internet, but also the measured data/formula’s entire also etc. on which the rating is based are on this site.
<br>
<br>So if anyone is in any doubt about his rating, the parameters can be checked on this site.
<br>
<br>So my vote is to choose a simple solution, as long as the results are what you want, and think are fair.
<br>
<br>Geert
<br>
<br><br><br>

Since we are sort of trying to emulate the other Formula classes (F18/F18 HT/F20/etc.) should we not seriously consider using whatever system THEY use (or do they all use different systems?) to stay somewhat in line with them??
<br>Here in the US we don't use either so I would vote based on what the other Formula classes use OR on the simpler system.
<br>What's the most common handicap rule in AUS? If it's VYC then they are in the same situation we are-
<br>
<br>Kirt<br><br>Kirt Simmons
<br>Taipan #159, "A" cat US 48

Kirt,
<br>
<br>The situation is as follows. The class in it self is a perfect formula class. Stay within the box and arrive at the finish first and you're the winner. Weight equalisation will probably be implemented by two size jibs and two size genakers just like the F18.
<br>
<br>But at the same time we are making the F16HP framework in such a way that it will receive an equal handicap number as the F18 (or the iF20 if that is possible , dream dream)
<br>
<br>Why ? Because this will be a definate selling argument in the EU and to some extend in the USA and Aus because of teh hobie cat tigers. Not for big F16HP race but for club races where the bulk of the F16HP will eventually be raced. These F16HP sailors will have to option of 1-up or 2-up with genaker and have gotten rid of the handicap blues to the most popular class in EU and be very close in handicap to other 18 footers in the rest of the world.
<br>
<br>Once this issue has been settled we file for a handicap rating on the class specs and all F16HP's will receive the same Texel or ISAF handicap as the F18's thus making them race one-design like in clubraces.
<br>
<br>It is this facet of the F16HP that we are discussing here. Outside own formula equality to F18's on handicap. Which system shall we use for that ?
<br>
<br>Texel or ISAF ?<br><br>

Yes, good points.
<br>
<br>I'm working out a improved system. I'm going to make the final desicion soon in order to keep the momentum going.
<br>
<br>So guys please replay now !!
<br>
<br>WOuter
<br>
<br><br><br>

Wouter-
<br>I know the object of the Formula rules themselves are to "allow" all the boats that meet the Formula rules to sail "heads up" with each other, BUT, do they ALL also rate equally under ISAF and/or Texel??
<br>Here in the US (not sure about AUS but I think the VYC is closer to PN?) they will "assign" a number to the "F16 HP" arbitrarily (at first) and then "adjust it" based on performance relative to other boats for all boats raced and registered under the "F16 HP" moniker.
<br>In the US (and AUS?) this could easily result in a different "number" for the F16 HP compared to the F18 regardless of the "specifications". If USSA were to use our results in the few races where Taipans have sailed against ANY F18's they would ALREADY have a "faster" number (and that's w/o gennaker in most instances!).
<br>So, if the EU sailors want to be able to race heads up with the F18's then I say let THEM decide whether they want to use Texel or ISAF since it will "impact" them more (IMO) and those of us in the US (and AUS?) can go along.
<br>Now, if you REALLY want my vote then I would say Texel since it's easier/less complicated-
<br>
<br>Kirt<br><br>Kirt Simmons
<br>Taipan #159, "A" cat US 48

cant speak for the east coasties.. but the local races are based on VYC with or without a local handicap..
<br>So for outright placing its strict VYC.. for handicap placing its VYC+local boat handicap.. or just local handicap based on each boats past performance (not class performance)
<br>
<br><br><br>